From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753268AbbIRKDU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:03:20 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:45564 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752861AbbIRKDT (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 06:03:19 -0400
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:03:12 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Kohji Okuno <okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com>
Cc: <tglx@linutronix.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: Fix bad IRQ_ONSHOT in forced IRQ setting
Message-ID: <20150918110312.0a49d22d@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150918.182207.856288392397747867.okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509172251370.3951@nanos>
	<20150918.093556.101988084572410337.okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1509180955290.3951@nanos>
	<20150918.182207.856288392397747867.okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com>
Organization: ARM Ltd
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:22:07 +0900
Kohji Okuno <okuno.kohji@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:04:23 +0200
> > That's weird. The flow is:
> > 
> > interrupt()
> >   mask()
> >   ret = primary_handler()
> >   if (ret == WAKE_THREAD)
> >     wake_thread()
> >   else
> >     unmask()
> > 
> > thread_handler()
> >   ....
> >   unmask()
> > 
> > So if an interrupt is triggered on the device while the interrupt is
> > masked it should be raised again immediately when the unmask happens
> > because its level type.
> > 
> > I'm wondering why that doesn't work.
> 
> Yes. I think so. And, I have just found that sdhci_thread_irq() don't
> finish in this case. I'm analyzing about this now. But, after I apply
> my patch, sdhci_thread_irq() can finish. I will share the result with
> you.

What do you mean exactly by "don't finish"? Does it hang somewhere? Or
keeps processing data but never drains?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.